Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 127133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a u t c o n

Case study analysis of risk from using excavators as cranes

David J. Edwards, Gary D. Holt
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Accepted 16 December 2009
Keywords:
Excavators
Plant and equipment
Cranes
Lifting operations
Health and safety

a b s t r a c t
Excavators are frequently used as cranes for object handling on construction sites, but this situation brings
with it signicant health and safety hazards that often, are not fully appreciated by stakeholders. These
hazards are identied; their risks explained and studied; and appropriate advice for stakeholders explicated.
A developmental approach is employed that embraces accrual of evidence; case studies; theoretical
examination; and derivation of guidance. It is found that excavators are often used as cranes employing both
formal or less satisfactory informal methods of load connection. Hazards from using excavators as cranes
(found principally among load connection points and associated lifting accessories), are often hidden and
can lead to catastrophic failure during lifting operations. Stakeholders need to be aware of the hazards and
implement suggested risk controls to remove or mitigate them.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Mechanisation is intrinsically associated with automation albeit a
fully automated process suggests minimal human intervention [1]. An
excavator is a common form of mechanised earth-moving machinery
that does generally require human control, but in recent years, original equipment manufacturers have increasingly built-in automated
technologies such as machine health diagnostics [2] and auto-dig
capabilities [3]. Academic research has also probed their potential for
totally automated use, for example, as a means to removing excavator
operators' exposure to harsh or dangerous environments [cf. 47].
The subject of excavator automation has been identied as a core
theme within construction plant and equipment management research [8] and an aspect of that relates to their being used as cranes.
For instance, embracing minimal operator intervention during lifting
operations, inclinometers and safe loading devices; although such
technologies have yet to be found on all excavators. It is the use of
excavators for lifting operations that forms the focus of this study.
Herein, the term excavator means any self propelled machine
designed principally for earth-moving operations and being tted with
a boom and dipper arm, to which is typically attached a bucket for
excavating and removing spoil from below its operating (i.e. ground)
level. Being a multipurpose item of mechanical work equipment, they
are available in a variety of sizes and congurations. Examples include
the mini-excavator renowned for its ease of operation and versatility
[9]; the wheeled backhoe, that is better known by its common
appellation JCB and which has been anecdotally labelled the greatest
ever digger [10]; and 360 tracked machines, with powerful hydrau Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: D.J.Edwards@lboro.ac.uk (D.J. Edwards), G.D.Holt@lboro.ac.uk
(G.D. Holt).
0926-5805/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.12.013

lics and longer reach arms often used for specialist (e.g. demolition,
irrigation, and ditching) type operations [11]. Their resourcefulness
underlines why the excavator is such a functional machine for construction and hence, why one will often be found on any building or
civil engineering site.
Such functionality has not come about by accident, but is to a
signicant extent, the result of commercially-driven product development. Competition between leading off-highway plant manufacturers leads them to constantly seek technical edge over competitors;
which combined with their need to cater for demands from end-users,
means that in-house research and development investment is high
and reected in rapid product evolvement. Indeed, the issue of plant
and equipment development and evolution is recognised within the
broader subject of plant management [8] and accordingly, been the
focus of several studies. For example, Arditi et al. [12] studied the ow
of construction equipment innovation into the construction industry;
Tatum et al. [13], focussed on innovation pertaining to earth-moving
equipment; and Shapira et al. [14] touched on the issue when considering soft considerations relating to selection of equipment for
building projects.
This evolvement relates not only to the machines themselves,
but additionally to the attachments they employ, such as specialist
buckets (e.g. trenching, mass excavation, dredging, ditching); hydraulic breakers; hydraulic crushers; and magnetic (or other types of
dedicated) grabs. The way in which these attachments mechanically
append to the excavator has witnessed development too, with the
resulting quick-hitch now used on most excavators as a means of
quickly disengaging and re-engaging them [15]. A quick-hitch reduces
the time taken to change an attachment from as much as 30 min, to
approximately 2 min [15]. Of relevance to the present study, many
quick-hitches also provide a formal lifting attachment point, and this
will be focussed upon later.

128

D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 127133

A particular aspect of excavator functionalityand that with which

this study is principally concernedis that of their being used as lifting
equipment for object handling. Hereafter, we will conveniently refer
to this activity as excavators used as cranes. While excavators'
primary role is that of earth-moving, they are frequently also used as a
crane [16]. This situation brings with it a whole new set of legislative
ramications for the machine owner/user [17,18], along with additional signicant health and safety risks for workers [19,20]. The latter
are often less well understood, sometimes, with serious accidents occurring as a result.

cavator lifting steel sheet piles using slings that had one of the slings
suddenly break (as a result of the excavator bucket pushing against
it), the piles fell and stuck a worker who sustained ...terrible injuries
[29]; the excavator that was lifting a muck skip from an excavated
shaft, when the skip broke free and fell to the base of the shaft injuring
an employee [22]; and the worker who was struck by a part ejected
from a load during an excavator lifting operation [30]. These kinds
of incident bring us conveniently to the aim and objectives of this
study.
1.2. Study aims and objectives

1.1. Issues relating to excavators used as cranes

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER)
[21] are applicable to Great Britain (GB) and dene lifting equipment
as ...work equipment for lifting or lowering loads and includes its
attachments used for anchoring, xing or supporting it; while a
lifting operation is dened as ...an operation concerned with the
lifting or lowering of a load. Hence, an excavator when object
handling becomes an item of lifting equipment carrying out lifting
operations and accordingly, is prone (within GB) to said health and
safety legislation.
The issue here for excavator owners and operators is that LOLER
place legal duties upon them over-and-above other relevant GB
legislation [22, Ap.2] such as The Provision and Use of Work Equipment
Regulations (1998) [23] and The Supply of Machinery (Safety)
Regulations 2008 [24]. In particular, regarding a duty to ensure that
lifting equipment is of adequate strength and stability for the loads to
be encountered and is subjected to a regime of thorough examination
and inspection [21] (See also [17] on this aspect). Similar additional
responsibility from using excavators as cranes applies in other
countries, for example, from Australian Standard 1418.8 [25,26].
According to International Standard EN 474-1: 2006, the critical
point at which an excavator is considered to be used as a crane is
when it ceases earth-moving operations and commences object
handling. To elucidate this, earth-moving involves ...excavating,
loading, transporting, spreading, compacting or trenching of earth,
rock or similar materials, while object handling in this context is the
application of the excavator to ...lifting, lowering and transporting of
a load by use of lifting accessories, whereby the assistance of a person
or the operator of the machine is required for hooking, unhooking, or
stabilising (while transporting) the load [27]. Typical loads would be
earthwork support components, precast concrete oor beams, spun
concrete pipes etc., while lifting accessories means things like chains,
hooks, slings and guide ropes. Note however, that if an excavator picks
up a load without the added assistance of a person for hooking,
stabilising or unhooking it (for instance, by scooping up an object in
its bucket), then this is considered earth-moving (and not lifting)
operations [27 Section 3.4].
The earlier mentioned quick-hitch (that is now found on most
excavators), is normally manufactured with a formal lifting eye as an
integral part of it. The designation formal is used here to differentiate
such excavator-to-lifting-accessories connection from informal ones,
the latter designated as any other method of connection not intended
by design (for instance, by wrapping a lifting chain or sling around a
convenient point on the machine). A typical quick-hitch with lifting
eye is shown attached to an excavator in Fig. 1, along with
identication of some relevant excavator components. It is useful at
this stage to appreciate these components, because they are referred
to hereafter.
Notwithstanding the existence of formal lifting connections on
excavator attachments, most often, excavators are not properly
equipped for safe lifting procedures and/or, operators may not fully
appreciate the lifting capabilities of their machine [28]. A series of
incidents relating to excavator lifting equipment failure and/or
detachment of loads have been reported. Examples include the ex-

The principal aim of this study was to investigate, and thereby

better understand, the hazards associated with using construction
excavators as cranes. Objectives linked to this aim were to:
a. identify exactly where the principal hazards are;
b. conrm the salient underlying causes of these hazards;
c. demonstrate the nature of potential health and safety risks
associated with types of identied hazard; and

Fig. 1. Quick-hitch with lifting eye attached and some relevant excavator components.

D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 127133

d. based upon achieving the stated aim and objectives (b) and (c),
suggest good practice for improving health and safety at construction sites where excavators are used as cranes.
2. Methodology
An incremental, developmental approach was employed embracing: accrual of anecdotal evidence; case study observation; theoretical
examination; and explication of guidance based on the foregone.
Anecdotal evidence was the catalyst for the study and emanated
principally from the authors' network of plant professionals. The case
study too was drawn from this source and was chosen as an appropriate form of investigation given; (i) the nature of the documentary case study data [cf. 31 p24]; (ii) the need to avoid a narrow
(methodological) approach in examining such data [cf. 32 p184];
and (iii) because the research called for in-depth description of a
phenomenon [33]. Stemming from the case study, theoretical examination of the mechanics of one particular type of failure mode was
chosen because this mode seemed to underpin the most commonly
occurring (and arguably greatest) risk when excavators are used as
cranes. Subjective explication, given consolidation of all the above
stages, followed.
3. Anecdotal evidence
This came over a period of some months from the authors' network of plant professionals (responsible for the day-to-day management of plant) and identied a recurrent problem with loads slipping
or moving, and breaking free during (excavator) lifting operations.
Some examples are: several incidents involving lifting equipment
(chains and slings) on ve GB construction sites in September and
October 2008 (three occurring within one company over ve days);
several incidents where chains broke; two incidents where lifting
accessories signicantly distorted under load; and one incident of
lifting accessory catastrophic failure.
Other anecdotal evidence is peppered among the trade press and
some examples of these were given in the introduction. Subjective
consideration of these incidents combined, identied two signicant
types of hazard: the rst relating to failure (in use) of suspended
lifting accessories such as when a chain breaks or a sling snaps; the
second, concerning failure at the point of connection between lifting
accessories and the excavator.
At this point, it is necessary to appreciate the typical conguration
(components and their relationship to each other) of an excavator
lifting operation as this will be referred to constantly hereaftersee
Fig. 2. Normally the (usually four, sometimes more than this) chains
or slings (D in Fig. 2) from which a load is suspended are gathered at
their uppermost point by way of a larger master link (C in Fig. 2). This
master link is in turn connected to a lifting eyeeither afxed to the
back of an excavating bucket or being an integral part of a quick-hitch
by means of a D-shackle and threaded pin (B in Fig. 2).
The rst type of incident (failure of slings and chains) is typically
due to their being overloaded (i.e. exceeding their safe working load
SWL). This general risk is common to any type of lifting operation,
not just excavators, and so is not expanded upon further here.
However, a reason for this mode of failure peculiar to excavators, can
result from the chains or slings becoming damaged (and hence
weakened) from their coming into contact with parts of the machine
[cf. 29]. The risk is exacerbated (in the case of excavators) in that
often, the lifting eye is located on the back of a quick-hitch or even the
excavating bucket (refer Fig. 1) and hence, when the excavator
operator moves the dipper arm or turns the quick-hitch about its
knuckle joint (crowds the quick-hitch) to manoeuvre a load, the sling
can be abraded against the bucket surface.
At this point we can see how development of the excavator to be
used as a crane has brought about this specic risk. Chains and slings

129

are designed to be used freely suspended (e.g. via the master link, and
possibly a D-shackle and pin) from a crane hook, yet by adopting them
for use with excavators, allows the situation where often this will not
be the case. In the latter, slings and chains can become physically
interrupted or impeded, with resultant unforeseen mechanical situations resulting in their damage or failure.
The second type of incident, failure at the point of connection, can
similarly be interpreted. A crane hook is freely suspended, so when a
master link (for example) is attached to it, it remains so even when
the load is manoeuvred by the crane operator. In the case of excavators, the lifting eye is rigidly afxed to the machine, and requires the
use of an additional (safety certied) itemthe D-shackle and pinto
complete the connection. Further, when the load is manoeuvred,
sometimes parts of the attaching mechanism (D-shackle/master link)
will come into contact with the machine and again this can create
signicant unforeseen changes in local forces. This latter type of incident is considered in more detail in the following case studies and
via theoretical examination.
4. Two case studies
The rst case involved use of one lifting chain, master link, and
D-shackle attached to an excavator quick-hitch similar to the conguration shown in Fig. 2. The 360 tracked excavator was lifting a loaded
concrete hopper to place concrete into forms on a large civil engineering
project. While catastrophic failure did not occur, after some use, signicant deformation of the master link was found. Detailed examination
of the lifting method identied that when the operator crowded the
quick-hitch back to ne-tune placement of the hopper during discharge, the master link was pulled over to one side (away from its
normal vertical position, as would be determined when it is freely
suspended). Given the resultant load on the master link, this caused it to
lodge against the D-shackle and hooking point, inducing signicant
bending stresses within it and resulting deformation.
The second case is the actual one shown in Fig. 2. This conguration was being employed, again with a 360 excavator, to lift
and place large precast concrete components on a civil engineering
project. It was found after use that the D-shackle pin was severely
distorted (bent) and physical damage had occurred to surfaces of the

Fig. 2. Lifting accessories attached to quick-hitch lifting eye using shackle and master
link.

130

D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 127133

quick-hitch and the master link. Severe local forces had induced this
damage and it was apparently therefore very fortunate that catastrophic failure had not occurred during the lifting operation. Investigation of the method used to lift, manoeuvre and place the load
noted that (similar to the last case), the problem came about as a
result of the operator crowding back the quick-hitch to ne-tune
(manoeuvre) placement of the load. The following section, examines
local forces in the lifting equipment, associated with this type of
manoeuvring.
4.1. Examination of forces about the lifting eye
Analysis of the mechanics pertaining to a typical lifting accessories/
excavator connection shown earlier in Fig. 2, identied a situation
where the forces within the D-shackle and master link can be significantly magnied (such magnication will vary with different physical
sizes of master link/D-shackle). This situation is demonstrated graphically in Fig. 3. Specically, in practice to help manoeuvre a load the
excavator operator will often retract the front of the quick-hitch about
its knuckle joint (by retracting respectively the hydraulic piston
designated 2 in Fig. 1 earlier)the resulting retraction (direction of
movement) of the quick-hitch, being shown by the curved arrow in
Fig. 3.
To further analyse this, Fig. 3 shows that this action causes the top
edge of the master link to make contact with the quick-hitch at a point
of rotation (designated p and pinpointed in Fig. 3). Rotational forces
about this point cause magnication of the load (designated L in
the gure). In this specic example, magnication of load is by a factor
of 7.

Fig. 3. Side view of quick-hitch suspending lifting accessories with hydraulic arm
retracted.

That is, let us take the distance between p and the centre-line of
the D-shackle to be x (shown in Fig. 3); and the horizontal distance
between point of rotation p and the centre-line of the suspended load
(L), to be 7x (also shown in the Figure). Then, given that for turning
moment equilibrium:
Mp = 0
where: Mp = product of moments about p, then:
R:xL:7x = 0
where: R = reactive force (F) within the D-shackle; and L = load,
hence:
R=

L:7x
= 7L
x

which equates to 3.5 L in each leg of the D-shackle/master link.

So for the above scenario, given a load of 0.5 tonne and a safe
working load (SWL) for the D-shackle/master link of 1 tonne (i.e.
assumed factor of safety of 2), then the D-shackle is subjected to a
force in excess of (7 0.5) 3 times its safe limit which explains the
possible resulting component deformation or catastrophic failure.
Examples of these failure modes occurring in master links drawn from
the case studies are shown in Fig. 4.
5. Discussion
Excavators have witnessed signicant development over the years
and part of that, has seen them become equipped with lifting eyes,
to enable them to be used as cranes for placement of a range of
construction materials. However, this additional aspect of their functionality brings with it signicant additional health and safety hazards,
often with these being somewhat hidden and not necessarily
appreciated by stakeholders (including owners, operators, and workers
in the vicinity). While this situation pertains, the ever-present risk of
catastrophic failure within lifting equipment when excavators are used
as cranes is placing lives at risk.
The two main types of health and safety risk resulting from using
excavations as cranes relate to: (i) failure in chains and slings during
lifting operations; and (ii) failure at the point of lifting equipment/
excavator connection. Note that these are not the only risks of
using excavators as cranes, but rather, are the focus of this paper.

Fig. 4. Examples of master link deformation/failure.

D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 127133

(Other risks include induced machine instability from a machine's

changing centre of gravity when moving loads [9]; dynamic forces
from swinging loads and from working a machine with its dipper arm
extended to its limit when trying to pick-up or position loads [34];
and the risk of hydraulic hose failure [35]).
The two types of risk central to this paper(i) failure of lifting
accessories; and (ii) failure at the point of lifting accessories/excavator
connectionhave different causes and can result in different types of
health and safety incident. Equally they call for different risk controls.
These aspects, and others, are summarised in Table 1, which gives
practical examples of each type of risk, typical results of equipment
failure, and some principal risk controls relating to same.
5.1. Explication of guidance
The overriding issue to evolve from this study relates to the fact
that most lifting accessories are designed to be used when freely
suspended, for example, as they would be from a crane hook. In
contrast, when excavators are used as cranes, very often lifting
accessories (by virtue of their xed rather than suspended nature)
come into contact with the excavator or parts thereof and/or the load.
This contact induces a signicant change in their physical conguration, often, with commensurate signicant changes in local forces (e.g.
bending forces and stress). This in turn can lead to deformation and/or
weakening of lifting accessories, or in the extreme, their catastrophic
failure.
In addressing such hazards controls will need to be far reaching
and in considering these, one cannot in the rst instance ignore good
general practice already entrenched in the literature, which includes:
1. using only certied, well maintained, appropriate and compatible
lifting equipment;
2. choosing lifting accessories of appropriate strength for the loads to
be encountered (taking into account their SWLs and a factor of
safety);
3. selecting appropriate and competent workers for lifting operations
(which includes the excavator operator, slingers, signallers and
banksmen);
4. making sure relevant workers are familiar with the risks identied
from the pre-lifting operations risk assessment (and additionally,
those specically highlighted within this study); and
5. maintaining a clear and safe designated work areaincluding solid
ground conditionsfor lifting operations.

131

Items (3) and (4) regarding operator competence/awareness are

of particular relevance, especially, relating to an operator's duty to
comply with instruction; to carry out daily checks; and report defects
straight away. Instructions must be readily accessible by the operator
and should make explicit whether the excavator can be used as a
crane or not and if so, identify its lifting capacity. Manufacturer's
guidance cannot be overlooked here and should always be safely kept
within the machine cabas should a lifting duty chart that relates to
lifting points on the machine and recommended boom/dipper arm
congurations. Typically, this will state that any movement of the
excavator with a suspended load must be with the boom and dipper
retracted to minimum practicable radius, while the operational speed
should be reduced to (or near) minimum. (But lifting charts may have
limited applicability to excavators, see comments from R2 in the next
section).
Instructions should also relate to the quick-hitch if one is (or may
be) used. Operators must check that any lifting point on the quickhitch (or elsewhere) is of a closed eye type and is rated (SWL) by the
manufacturer. Daily check lists must be provided so that the operator
can perform these checks and report serviceability and/or defects
straight away. Notably, quick-hitches used for lifting are subject to
thorough testing and examination in accordance with LOLER and this
regime should be completed by a competent person every 12 months
if the hitch is permanently mounted; or every 6 months if not
mounted permanently (if not permanently attached the quick-hitch is
classied as a lifting accessory).
While all the above hazards (and thus indicated good practice to
remove or mitigate these) apply when using excavators as cranes, by
far the greatest risk comes from physical contact and/or entrapment
and/or abrasion of lifting accessories during lifting operations. Hence,
the single most important risk control when using excavators as
cranes has to be: To allow lifting equipment to hang freely from the
excavator at all times; from the lifting eye, through the D-shackle
connection, through the master link and down through all slings or
chains. At no time must any lifting accessories become impeded while
lifting operations are under way.
The longer term solution here may be a mechanical one, such that
the (revised position of a) lifting point will not allow (or will
discourage) physical impediment of lifting accessories to occur. While
not the intention of this study to proffer a detailed engineering
solution, it is envisaged that such solution will take account of: (i) a
hinged connection to the excavator (or excavator attachment) that
will allow connected lifting accessories to always hang directly from

Table 1
Types of H&S incident and associated characteristics when excavators are used as cranes.
Sling/chain failure

Failure at point of connection

Description

Lifting sling(s) or chain(s) fails and breaks

Typical causea

a) SWL of sling/chain exceeded

b) In this specic context: Weakness in sling/chain
caused from physical contact with excavator or part thereof
c) More general: from physical contact elsewhere such as
with load
Sling rubs on back of excavator bucket and becomes
damaged
a) Failure places extra load on remaining chains/slings
causing progressive failure
b) Load moves unsafely and falls in part or whole
c) Total failure causes load to fall
Use slings chains of appropriate SWL with adequate factor
of safety; protect slings/chains from physical contact with
machine or load; ensure lifting slings and chains hang freely
from D-shackle and master link at all times

Part(s) of connecting mechanism make contact with machine and

may also be subject to increased loadings (bending, stress)
Load pushes connecting mechanism against machine and under some
conditions will cause mechanism to act as a lever magnifying localised
forces

Specic practical example

Result(s) of failure

Principal control mechanism(s)b

Crowding of quick-hitch traps one end of master link against it, continued
crowding places increasing load into D-shackle, pin and master link
Bending of components (e.g. shackle pin or master link), total failure will
be catastrophic causing connection to fail and load to fall

Use connecting equipment of appropriate SWL with adequate factor

of safety; avoid crowding lifting eye and trapping components;
ensure lifting equipment hangs freely from lifting eye at all times

a
To focus on the issues at hand, the table assumes no external issues as causes of incidents or failure, such as from use of damaged lifting accessories/use of incorrect equipment/
incompatibility of components/operator error etc., though these issues should not be overlooked and should form part of an appropriate pre-lifting operations risk assessment.
b
To focus on the issues at hand, this is not an exhaustive list and will typically embrace additional mechanical or procedural controls such as ensuring operator competence and
maintaining a safe working area.

132

D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 127133

the vertical; (ii) afford distance (and hence discourage impediment)

between the connection point on the machine and that of lifting
accessories; and (iii) be positioned on or towards the lower edge of
the excavator arm (or excavator attachment), again to discourage
impediment of lifting accessories during lifting operations.
5.2. Invited comment on the study
A copy of this paper was sent to a sample of four plant
professionals for comment on its content and conclusions. Each
professional responded and was designated R1, to R4 respectively, so
that their feedback could be referenced in the discussion below. The
sample comprised: a Marketing Director of a plant hire company
operating nationally within the UK and the USA (R1); the Director of
an excavator attachment manufacturer (R2); the Director of a miniexcavator manufacturer (R3); and the owner of an excavator operator
training company (R4). Respondent comments below are in quotes
verbatim, while comments and connections in square brackets are
provided by the authors.
R1 conrmed the importance of the subject, I think it is
particularly relevant at this time [...] all meetings and conferences
attended recently have had a subject relating to mini-excavators [and
their] safety implications. I think [the paper] gives a good insight into
the H&S safety implications and changes that need to be adopted
when using excavators as cranes.
R2 focussed on the aspect of excavator buckets, highlighting that
any such attachment they manufacture has to be supplied with a test
certication of its SWL, but that, the grey area surrounding SWL [is
that] although we have tested [the lifting eye] this can only be used on
a machine that itself has a designated SWL. That is, it would be
technically possible for us to design a 10 Tonne SWL lift eye for a 1.5 T
mini-excavator, which clearly would not, by extension, mean the 1.5 T
excavator was capable of lifting such loads. R2 also pointed out that,
excavators, unlike cranes, do not have safe load indicators [...]
furthermore, even a load chart [used to identify safe loads under given
lifting congurations] is difcult to provide because of the various
combinations of boom and dipper. That is, the conguration of boom
and dipper arm (e.g. height and radius) is constantly variable when an
excavator is at work and hence, it is difcult to generalise what is a
SWL under such conditions. It was concluded, [this is a] worthwhile
and necessary piece of work. For too long the core issues surrounding
this subject have been ignored by excavator owners and operators
and accidents are common but preventable.
R3 pointed out that lifting attachments compatible with quickhitches are available that encourage objects to be lifted in the free lift
conguration. The problems here are that these are not broadly
recognised in the industry and, that they require removal of the
bucket for them to attach to the end of the dipper arm. In practice,
workers nd it much easier and quicker to simply hook slings and
chains to the lifting eye already provided on the quick-hitch (or
simply around the bucket) and so the problems identied in this study
pertain. R3 concluded, This is an extremely useful and informative
paper that addresses an important aspect of plant management, the
conclusions are robust and a good indicator of current practice. R4
focussed on description of technical parts of the paper and suggested
several revisions to aid clarity, most of which were adopted,
concluding, A very good document, thought provoking [for those
who] do not know how to analyse the risks.
6. Conclusions
The advent of innovative excavator designs has brought with them
the provision and tendency for their being used as items of lifting
equipment. This situation presents a whole new set of health and
safety hazards to excavator owners, operators and other stakeholders,
relating specically to their being used for this purpose. Aside from

more recognised hazards when excavators are used as cranes (such as

induced machine instability), this study has shown that two particular
types of hazard apply:
failure of lifting chain(s) and/or sling(s); and
failure at the point of connection between the excavator and lifting
accessories.
In both cases, the ultimate risk is that of the load falling unpredictably.
It is apparent from the case studies that failure of lifting chains
and/or slings, results predominantly from their being abraded by
contact with the excavator and/or the load. This is peculiar to excavators, mainly because the position of lifting equipment connection
on them has a tendency to encourage slings and chains to hang over
parts of the machine (such as the bucket) during lifting operations.
Failure at the point of connection, which may occur in the D-shackle
or the master link, results predominantly from the fact that machine
operators will manoeuvre the lifting eye about the knuckle joint
at the end of the excavator dipper arm, as a means of ne-tuning
load placement. It has been shown that this can cause said lifting
accessory components to come into contact with the machine, in
such as way that it introduces additional (bending, stress) forces into
those components. Often, to the point of their mechanical failure. It
is this focus on potential for catastrophic failure at or about this
connection point that is the main product of this study.
Controls necessary to remove or mitigate these hazards, include
using appropriate certied equipment of suitable size and strength,
while also educating stakeholders of the risks. The principal player
here is the excavator operator, who needs to be made aware of the
specic hazards relating to using excavators as cranes; be trained in
how to avoid and mitigate these hazards; and be encouraged to
particularly apply a rigorous daily inspection regime of all (esp.
lifting) equipment and report any defects immediately.
All excavator operators must be educated to avoid the hazards of
connection point / sling failure when using excavators as cranes, by
their allowing lifting equipment to hang freely from the excavator at
all times. The latter is the key recommendation from this research:
when freely suspended lifting equipment remains unimpeded during
lifting operations, the specic risks of failure identied in this study will
unlikely come into being.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement is extended to the industrial collaborators, in
particular, Steve Cribbin, Divisional Chief Engineer, Birse Civils.
Professor Simon Austin of Loughborough University is thanked for
his comments relating to relevant structural forces. The reviewers of
the paper, both from industry and the journal refereeing process, are
also thanked for their constructive comments.
References
[1] Automate. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. Accessed via: http://
dictionary.reference.com/browse/automate, (November 2009).
[2] D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt, F.C. Harris, Maintenance Management of Heavy Duty Plant
and Equipment, Chandos Publishing Ltd., Oxford1-902375-09-2, 1998.
[3] Aggregate Autodig Operator Tips: Video. Sub-domain of the Caterpillar plant
manufacturer website, accessed via: http://safety.cat.com/cda/components/fullArticle?id=496053&m=130081&x=7 (November 2009).
[4] A.J. Koivo, M. Thoma, E. Kocaoglan, J. Andrade-Cetto, Modelling and control of
excavator dynamics during digging operation, Journal of Aerospace Engineering.,
vol. 9, No. 1, The American Society of Civil Engineers, 1996, pp. 1018.
[5] L.E. Bernold, Motion and path control for robotic excavation, Journal of Aerospace
Engineering., vol. 6, No. 1, The American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993, pp. 118.
[6] Q.P. Ha, Q.H. Nguyen, D.C. Rye, H.F. Durrant-Whyte, Impedance control of a
hydraulically actuated robotic excavator, Automation in Construction, vol. 9, No. 56,
Elsevier Science, 2000, pp. 421435.
[7] P.K. Vh, M. Skibniewski, Dynamic model of excavator, Journal of Aerospace
Engineering., vol. 6, No. 2, The American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993, pp. 148158.
[8] D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt, Construction plant and equipment management research:
thematic review, The Journal of Engineering, Design, and Technology., vol. 7, No. 2,
Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, 2009, pp. 186206.

D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 127133

[9] D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt, New stability eld tests for construction excavators, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management., vol. 16, No. 4, Emerald Group
Publishing Ltd, 2009, pp. 337352.
[10] Anon (2005). JCB Backhoe Loader wins Greatest Ever Digger Title. Agriculture on
the Web, Stackyard News, accessed via: http://www.stackyard.com/news/2005/
09/machinery/jcb_greatest_ever.html (June 2009).
[11] Tracked Excavator. Product sheet. J. C. Bamford Ltd. Accessed via: http://www.jcb.
com/largeequipment/largeequipment.aspx (June 2009).
[12] D. Arditi, S. Kale, M. Tangkar, Innovation in construction equipment and its ow
into the construction industry, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management., vol. 123, No. 4, The American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997, pp. 371378.
[13] C.B. Tatum, M. Vorster, M. Klingler, Innovations in earthmoving equipment: new
forms and their evolution, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 132, No. 9, The American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006, pp. 987997.
[14] A. Shapira, G. Lucko, C.J. Schexnayder, Cranes for building construction projects,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management., vol. 133, No. 9, The American
Society of Civil Engineers, 2007, pp. 690700.
[15] D.J. Edwards, G.D. Holt, Health and safety issues relating to construction excavators
and their attachments, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management., vol.
15, No. 4, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, 2008, pp. 321335.
[16] Guidance on Lifting Operations in Construction When Using Excavators. London:
Construction Plant-hire Association. Document ref: CIG 0801 (2008). Accessed via:
http://www.ceca.co.uk/Uploads/IndustryIssueDocs/Guidance%20on%20Excavators%
20Used%20as%20Cranes.pdf (June 2009).
[17] P. Oram, Annex 14: Thorough Examination of Excavator (Used for Excavation /
Object Handling), Thorough Examination and Inspection of Particular Items of
Lifting Equipment, HSE Books, London, ISBN: 0-7176-2349-1, 2002.
[18] HSE (2006). Excavators in Tree Work. London: The Health and Safety Executive.
Document ref, AFAG704. ISBN: 0-7176-2629-6.
[19] Earthmoving Equipment Used as a Crane. Worksafe Victoria. Guidance Note
(2005). Accessed via: http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/WorkSafe/Home/Forms+and+Publications/Guidance+Notes/import_Earthmoving+
Equipment+Used+as+a+Crane (June 2009).
[20] P. Hughes, E. Ferret, Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction (Second
Edition), Elsevier, Oxford978-0-7506-8111-7, 2007.
[21] The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. Statutory Instrument
1998 No. 2307. Accessed via the UK Statute Law Database at: http://www.statutelaw.
gov.uk/Home.aspx (June 2009).

133

[22] HSE, The Safe Use of Vehicles on Construction Sites. (HSG144, HSE Books,
London978-0-7176-6291-3, 2009.
[23] The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. Statutory Instrument
1998 No. 2306. Accessed via the UK Statute Law Database at: http://www.
statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx (June 2009).
[24] The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. Statutory Instrument 2008
No. 1597. Accessed via the UK Statute Law Database at: http://www.statutelaw.
gov.uk/Home.aspx (June 2009).
[25] Australian Standard AS 1418.8, Cranes, Hoists and WinchesSpecial Purpose
Appliances, Australian Standards, Sydney, 2008.
[26] Guidance documentLifting with Earthmoving Machinery, and how Australian
Standard AS 1418.8:2008 Section 5 Applies. Construction & Mining Equipment
Industry Group Inc. Engineering Position Paper No. 830 May 2009. Accessed via:
http://www.cmeig.com.au/documents/CMEIGPositionPaperAS1418.8section5guidanceEMM.pdf (June 2009).
[27] Earth-moving MachinerySafetyPart 1: General Requirements. British Standard
BS EN 474-1: 2006. The British Standards Institution.
[28] Contract Journal (2009). Warning over Excavators being used for Improper Lifting.
Contract Journal. Accessed via: http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2009/
03/18/65664/warning-over-excavators-being-used-for-improper-lifting.html
(July 2009).
[29] HSE (2004). Company Fined 25, 000 for Worker Injuries. HSE Press Release E079:04.
Accessed via: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2004/e04079.htm (July 2009).
[30] HSE (2009b). Details for Case No. 4039973. Prosecution details on HSE
Prosecutions Database, accessed via: http://www.hse.gov.uk/Prosecutions/case/
case_details.asp?SF=CN&SV=4039973 (July 2009).
[31] FellowsR , LiuA. , Research Methods for Construction, Blackwell Publishing978-0632-06435-9, 2003.
[32] DaviesM.B. , Doing a Successful Research Project Using Qualitative or Quantitative
Methods, Palgrave Macmillan978-1-4039-9379-3, 2007.
[33] YinR.K. , Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th edition, Sage Publications,
ISBN: 978-1412960991, 2008.
[34] Collins, S. (2000). ExcavatorsSafe use in Canal Restoration. Inland Waterways
Association. Accessed via: http://www.wrg.org.uk/prh/excavators.pdf (August 2009).
[35] Anon (2009). Earthmoving EquipmentBurst protection on Earthmoving Equipment Used as Cranes. Technical Guidance Note, Queensland Government,
Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Accessed via: http://www.
deir.qld.gov.au/pdf/whs/earthmoving_burstprotection.pdf (August 2009).